About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
house in order. or begin that process. it's argued by the pentagon leaders that the military sequester would be crippling and would endanger national security. and, of course, the aerospace industries argue that there will be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs lost if the sequester were enforced. there's another way to look at the military sequester, which is what our panel is organized to do. and especially if you conclude, as do some of us, as do i, that the defense department is excessively large, riddled with inefficiency and subject to the corrupting influence of the defense industry. president obama believes that it is time to end our wars and to do nation building at home. the sequester, feared by many, could be, however, a way of opening the door to nation building. of ourselves. by shifting resources from defense to domestic needs. as we saw in the disasters of katrina and sandy, our infrastructure needs alone are enormous. whether as a result of horrendous storms or not. to cite just a few, the cost of repairing and replacing our water system -- dams, lev
, actually, to a private sector led economy, reintegrate ourselves with pentagon into central asia, we don't see much progress in this front, and on the issue of transition to the security responsibility to the afghans, really, to take speedometer of the fight up on themselves because there is no shortage of courage or skill in afghan. the afghan should be fighting the fight themselves. u.s. should get out of the combat role in afghanistan. that's good for afghanistan and the u.s., and also, it makes limited use presence in afghanistan sustainable if no u.s. soldier dying in afghanistan. therefore, in this front also, there's not many progress or cooperation by friends in pakistan. we very much would like, actually, the afghan people, particularly the government, see improvement on that. just to end on very short comments on what some of the distinguished panelists have mentioned, i totally expect that the issue of not having any evidence on bin laden be in islamabad. hard to imagine someone hiding in west point in the united states and in a businessman, friewntly speak the language, that
to bring his pentagon into this particular new cycle but "don't ask don't tell" its historic. "don't ask don't tell" was passed but we still have to remember that our men and women who fight and die for this country, they still don't have equal benefits. there's still a long ways to go in this country as it relates to equal benefits and issues of i.d. cards and base housing in partnership benefits and a whole host of things. its important progress that we still need to make as well as transgender service, something that is not even right now discussion but it's something that's important and needs to be addressed. you know i say that because all these things we talk about, we talk about the politics and the numbers in the victories and not so many losses. but at at the end of the day there are real-life people. it's not often that we pass a law that there are real-life people who are immediately impacted and feel that. but right now in this country, the vast majority of people live in places where they are treated as second-class citizens in a young person growing up in america today, if
a said on a number of occasions, the pentagon, the intelligence community believe that this legislation is vitally to the safety and security of our country. so before thanksgiving, we're going to finish the sports men's bill, we're going to have -- the republicans need to kill the cybersecurity bill. they've been following the lead of the chamber of commerce, which is an arm of the republican party anymore. it is just a front for the republican party. they spend huge amounts of money that they get from unknown sources to defeat democrats. they wasted their money this time, but that's the way it is. they are opposing this bill for not any logical reason. then we -- senator levin and mccain have asked to go to defense authorization. i think if this bill is as important as they say it is -- and they say it is important; i know how senator levin and senator mccain feel about it -- looks like they would clear away some of this stuff that's getting in the way. but that's where we are. i think it is religionly a bridge too far to complete the defense authorization bill before we leave but we
that was -- that was and is most important that sends the money to the pentagon was just killed, and that's cybersecurity. mr. president, i have had a number of people come to me during the day and said are you going to allow relevant amendments on this? i said sure. they said how about five? i said fine. but, mr. president, whatever we do on this bill, it's not enough for the chamber of commerce, not enough. so everyone should understand cybersecurity is dead for this congress. what an unfortunate thing, but that's the way it is. the sportsman's bill, mr. president, i filed cloture on this bill yesterday. unless we can agree to a limited number of amendments, we'll have cloture vote on the bill early tomorrow morning, probably around 9:00. if we get cloture, there will be a potential 30 hours for debate. under the rules as we all know too well. i have been told that some on the other side also plans to make a budget act point of order against the sportsman's bill. we have members representing the states of new york and new jersey who are going to be in their states tomorrow because of the tremendous damage
. >> if you go over the fiscal cliff you also get another roughly $600 billion in savings from the pentagon, military spending. what is your own view about whether or not this country and its government should be prepared to go beyond the 487 billion the president initially targeted in terms of reductions in defense spending and go further, something closer to that 600 billion figure? >> well, i do think there are additional savings to be made in defense spending. as you indicated we did $487 billion in reductions as part of the original budget control act, and it's important to be clear that those reductions were reduction from projected increase. it wasn't a reduction from the baseline. if you go off the fiscal cliff, it's about another $500 billion. simpson-bowles, essential had as much savings and defense as if he went over the fiscal cliff. they have another 500 billion simpson-bowles what's also important to them so that was part of the simpson-bowles framework. first of all, this of course is just in a responsible way to deal with cuts, whether defense or nondefense because it gets a
was in the united states last january he specifically wanted to pay a visit to the pentagon, which he did. so it indicates that xi i is not necessary just to himself from this kind of relationship. you may even see a kind of value added and identifying with it. at the way that china is trying to improve its advantage, if you will, is to present itself as a much more credible force in this context. now, with -- would've xi jinping be prepared to risk a major downturn in the u.s.-china relationship for all the reasons have been noted? i doubt this very, very seriously. but china has its date certain kind of claims that could very well we configured the regional environment for years to come, or at least enables china in its own estimation to better protect and assert its interests. so the question for the longer-term is how does the united states choose to react and respond. this is among the operative questions it seems to me that the obama administration is going to face in coming years. thank you very much for your time. [applause] >> so my second role is to be a discussed in bashing discuss
-tightening mode, it's important to keep in mind it's not just the pentagon that has not done things very cost effectively. i'm a big fan of the recent health care reform, but it was, you know, one of its strong points was not cost containment. and in addition, the cost containment measures that were there were not viewed as credible. and so that was a political decision, and partly it was a function of how it was done. and, you know, again i'm being cynical. i say the republicans, it's not so much that -- you know, republicans are not a monolith although they're closer than democrats, but some republicans genuinely don't want to increase taxes on the middle class and don't want a double dip recession. but the way that the party, the revealed preferences of the party in recent years has been they're much more concerned about the wealthy, you know, tan they are about these things -- than they are about these things. the democrats, so we are told now, i mean, it's a bargaining position. you know, the president has gone all out saying one thing they really want out of this is tax increases, you k
the pentagon and all the men and women in uniform who serve us so well as to the policies of the united states. i know i'll work with my colleague from alabama to see that accomplished. mr. president, i come back to the senate floor today as i have on many occasions to urge all of us to take action on a spool that's -- policy that's bipartisan, in its support and ramification. that is the production tax credit for wind energy. we need to renew that production tax credit. it's encouraged billions of dollars in investment and helped create tens of thousands of good-paying moobs across our country -- american jobs across our country. but i have to tell your our inaction here is jeopardizing the future of what's really a promising industry. we've literally over the last months seen wind industry jobs in the thousands disappear. that's not a statistic, not just a statement, those jobs affected real americans. and these job losses were completely preventible. and it's time for us to get back to work and extend the production tax credit so that our wind energy industry can also get back to work. and
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9